Just spent 30 minutes looking for a text in MGH that was cited wrongly (but the same wrong citation in two different places).
-
Show this thread
-
Unless something in the MGH changed but I doubt it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Also, shockingly difficult to find references to the textual info for the coronation/anointment (or whatever you want to call it) of Pippin in 751. So many papers and references to the event without actually referencing the text. Wtf?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
McKitterick, 'The Illusion of Royal Power in the Carolingian Annals' has all the citations, I think
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HalstedMedieval
I know, I found it eventually. I realized the issue, it refers to an older edition of MGH and the newer one (but not actually “new”) had changed the page numbers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
This is the most annoying. With some they actually change the volume ordering too. IIRC, the original Thietmar edition was in the SSRG, but the new one is in the SSRG n.s. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HalstedMedieval
God lmao. How are we supposed to find anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
Still better than people citing editions of stuff that came out in like the 80s that's impossible to find instead of just citing SS 1-4 like normal humans
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip
is it full of 1826 mistakes yes but it's FINE COME ON
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
